I wish there were language comparisons that grounded this
principle in examples. To repeat from XML-Dev:
When selecting a language, how does one know when it has the 'least power'?
o Is Assembler less or more powerful than C?
o Is C less or more powerful than C++?
o Is Lisp less or more powerful than Prolog?
o Is RDF less or more powerful than Conceptual Graphs?
o Are Conceptual Graphs more or less powerful than Topic Maps?
o Are DTDs less or more powerful than Schematron?
A principle or axiom is of no value without the rules for applying it.
At least some examples?
len
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]
I realise I'm not altogether happy about the degree of vagueness of
the appeal to 'power' in the current draft.
In particular, I think we need to distinguish between expressiveness
on the one hand and formal complexity on the other, whether worst-case
time/space complexity or formal-language-theory complexity.
Expressive richness is not necessarily 'bad' complexity -- consider
boolean logic expressed with 0, 1 and Shaeffer stroke (== exclusive
or) versus boolean logic expressed with and, or, implication and
negation -- the latter is both more complex and _much_ easier to work
with, but at _no_ additional cost.
I think I'd be much happier if this were made clearer.
ht